From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig |
Date: | 1999-06-18 05:27:01 |
Message-ID: | 001101beb94b$3182e420$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> > > What this does is to create a zero length file, and the rename unlinks
> > > the tablename file, and puts the zero-length file in it's place.
> > > rename() is atomic, so there is no time that the table file does not
> > > exist.
> > >
> >
> > Let
> > i1 be the inode of zz
> > i2 be the inode of tablename
> > before rename().
> >
> > Does this mean
> >
> > New backends read/write i1 inode and
> > backends that have the table open read/write i2 inode ?
> >
> > If so,it seems wrong.
> > All backends should see same data.
>
> Yes, I can see your point. It would show them different views of the
> table.
>
> So, as you were saying, we have no way of invalidating file descriptors
> of other backends for secondary segments.
It seems DROP TABLE has a similar problem.
It has been already solved ?
> Why does truncating the file
> not work? Any ideas?
>
I have gotten no bug reports for my trial implementation.
AFAIK,only Ole Gjerde has tested my patch.
Is it sufficient ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-18 05:32:27 | Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-18 04:43:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Apparent bug in _make_subplan |